The Mandela Myth

THE MANDELA MYTH

By guest Contributor: August Pointneuf

Mandela is widely held to be “one of the greatest statesmen in the world”. This seems to be based on these six pillars:

1. Martyrdom. A closer look at this “self sacrifice” is not convincing. Mandela was jailed following an open trial, under one of the best judicial systems. It has never been suggested that this trial was perverted or corrupt. He was found guilty of contravening the laws universal to the land, and more than that, he had promoted a policy of terrorism. He had plans to disrupt law and order and impose a terrorism which would result in the maiming and death of many good and law abiding persons, children and elderly. When subsequently imprisoned he was offered release provided only that he would renounce his support of violence. He would not. Accordingly he remained in prison. Later, by the most extraordinary inversion of innate justice he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. It may well be that the Nobel Prize committee will, in retrospect, attempt to distance themselves from it.

2. He saved South Africa from a blood bath. When persons spoke, prior to independence, of an impending “blood bath” they were imaging the events as they had previously occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. These past “blood baths” were not as much exercises in retribution (the veiled threat to South Africans) but simply sprees of looting and rapine. There was probably no possibility whatever of South Africa as a whole rising in this way, because of a well formulated social infrastructure, with an effective police force (operating entirely within an open judicial system) and the other components of a stable society.

Such was the relationship between the communities under apartheid rule in South Africa that an intrinsic stability, and for that matter mutual respect, existed.^[1] There were, of course, the well recorded “insurrections”, but a critical look at the numbers will demonstrate that these were by a minute percentage of the population. “The Blood Bath will come…” was an emotively convenient threat, much along the line “if you don’t give me your ball, I will ask my daddy to beat you up”. This phrase and its implied emotive threats, was something conjured by those who were intent on destroying an existing system by inducing fear.

Far from demonstrating that Nelson Mandela was responsible for “preventing a blood bath”, the evidence points in the opposite direction. He founded and was the head of an organization which promoted bloody massacres of civilian populations.^[2] Not only that, he was leading the ANC which effected a bloody suppression on their own “recruits” in the ANC army-in-exile. The truth and Reconciliation Commission ruled that these ANC activities were a “gross violation of human rights”^[3]

A blood bath did occur, but after “independence” and after universal suffrage, when Mandela was in command. Part of this was black on black violence during the build up to the first election, reported to have claimed more than 20,000 black lives. Did Mandela stop that blood bath? Short answer; no.

The slaughter still continues with the selective execution of isolated (white) farmers by the thousand and the phenomenal homicide, mostly associated with robbery.

Under a “liberated” black government the “blood bath” happened more slowly than the other African atrocities. The difference was that “world opinion” did not want to believe that this was happening after an “independence” which they had promoted. Slowly accumulating statistics of killings do not make headlines.

The looting of South Africa did occur but in a different way from the rest of Africa. What distinguished the looting of South Africa from other historic rampages in Africa was that it was slower and politically engineered, under the leadership of Mandela. The initial looting was by “cold theft” engineered by the ANC by the subtle stripping of the assets under various legislated ploys such as “black empowerment” and “affirmative action”. This was followed by massive corruption, embezzlement and fraud perpetrated by individual members of the ANC, on their own account.

Later the avalanche of confrontational crime, murder, hijackings and wide spread theft cascaded throughout the country as criminals began to appreciate that under a black government there were now no longer the same restraints against lawlessness as there had been under white government.

3. Mandela exemplified pacifism, as claimed in his well publicized comment: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC , MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.”

Mandela founded the MK, and became its leader immediately after he had been acquitted from his first trial. This gives credibility to his initial arrest since. Mandela had been actively promoting terrorism. This earlier acquittal underscores the judicial objectivity of Mandela’s first trial, such that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted (although it subsequently became clear that he was intent on promoting violence).

The reason for what Mandela called “the initial passive resistance” was not that he did not want violence but simply because there were no funds to run a military campaign. Mandela was hardly the organiser it is claimed that he was. Further he had little support from the black population, despite the consistent emotive rhetoric about a “suppressed people”. At that date the “armed struggle” was an empty fantasy. It was later conceded by the ANC that this was no more than a propaganda strategy primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support. Mandela was simply garnishing inability with virtue

4. Mandela was dispassionately objective. This attribution later allowed him to act as an international mediator over a wide range of political and legal issues. How objective was he? A demonstration of his lack of impartiality was his speech in Havana on 26 July 1991. Nelson Mandela supported the Cuban version of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale by saying: “The defeat of the apartheid army (at Cuito Cuanavale) was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of (sic) Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!"^[4]

Chester Crocker, with his backing of CIA knowledge, and with arguably a more arms-length objectivity, saw it quite differently^[5]. If one accepts Chester Crocker’s countering opinion, Mandela’s views can be regarded as grossly distortive “Black Consciousness Propaganda”.

5. Nelson Mandela personified opposition to black oppression. Undoubtedly Mandela was symbolic to the large and unsuccessful peasant populations, implying that they, also, via their vicarious surrogate, Nelson Mandela, could triumph over the white civilization. This re-ignited the symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi, who also had a reputation for passifism. Ironically he was also a lawyer, who obtained, from the British Government, the benefit of training in law. But his “passifism” must also be doubted.^[6]

Far from “rescuing” the masses from impoverishment the income of most peasant South Africans has decreased since “independence”. Small numbers of selected elite blacks, on the other hand, have become exceptionally wealthy

6. He exhibited supreme statesmanship as President of South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to the release of Nelson Mandela and the truce offered to the ANC, Mandela and the ANC were approached by South Africa’s very successful financial and industrial cohort. This was as an “economic truce within a political truce”. It must be remembered that the entire population of South Africa, in distinction from the rest of Africa and most of the rest of the world, were the beneficiaries of the extraordinary successful system evolved by Colonialism. In pre-independence meetings with ANC, notably in Lusaka, the high probabilities are that the cohort wanted to explain to the ANC that they would be inheriting a jewel. It would have been pointed out to them that damaging this financial axis would damage the entire country, probably in an irreparable fashion. Those affected by damaging the South African economy would be the most vulnerable, the poorest.

There could have been no other reasons for the Lusaka meeting other than that portrayed here. Paternal, as it might have been, for Mandela to heed this cautioning from the people then in power was vital to the future welfare of the entire population of South Africa and beyond.

The preservation of South Africa’s economy depended upon Mandela’s leadership.With huge international and internal support no politician could have had a stronger mandate than Nelson Mandela.

Despite such support, and despite august warnings, Mandela failed totally to protect the existing structures, and within a short period after “independence” it became clear to the financial and industrial core of South Africa that the ANC would proceed on its own agenda, which would destroy the industrial/financial infrastructure of South Africa^[7].

This resulted in the financial axis, exemplified by Anglo American, Liberty Life and Old Mutual, rapidly exiting. While powerful companies in South Africa had sufficient resources to relocate into the First World many lesser businesses did not and remained trapped. Therefore individuals, seeing themselves threatened, emigrated en masse^[8], thus further reducing the professional and other skilled resources of the country, and so by a cascade damaging the financial benefit which had made black South Africans the best cared for, best educated, healthiest and most affluent in (at least) sub-Saharan Africa.

Once in office Mandela took control of only one portfolio, Race Relations, which was unlikely to be controversial, and could hardly fail. However, in the circumstances, this instantly invested him with more virtue. He took some interest in the military where he tried to ensure the language of operation was not English. He was rapidly over-ruled, having displayed an astounding lack of common-sense, let alone a lack of statesmanship. For the rest he delegated to his ministers showing little interest in their management, and so effectively abdicating any leadership.

Therefore Mandela’ failed as a politician by not recognizing the extraordinary infrastructure which he, and the ANC, had inherited. He failed protect it and failed to support the existing structures in a way which could multiply South Africa’s past success. The jewel which was South Africa – in stark contrast to the rest of Africa - should have been obvious to the blindest. But Mandela permitted the progressive erosion of the South African infrastructure by nepotism and crime at an administrative level and by gain-seeking individuals - primarily those with political connections to him – and who were (nominally) under his “statesmanship”. Most of the “statesmanship” purported to originate from Mandela’s office was in reality orchestrated by the now defunct Thabo Mbeki. An illusion of his political capacity was thrust upon him by a surge of world wide emotion which obscured his limited intrinsic abilities,

Mandela abandoned his role as leader of the country after the least possible period, and while it still needed stable leadership. However he was in office long enough to accumulate a substantial wealth, which further distanced him from the increasing poverty of the population under his control.^[9]

No saintly asceticism here.

Conclusion. The greatest condemnation that must be leveled at Mandela was his failure to accept that with universal franchise all playing fields had been leveled. He failed to demand that the future success of individuals and groups would depend upon their intrinsic capabilities. Instead, he over-saw an astonishing exercise which effectively said that the groups coming into power should have their past inferiority recognized by being given advantageous benefits, in the form of black empowerment, affirmative action and similar. This shows the hollowness to his oft quoted statements

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve”.

Further, those persons who had previously created the successful socio-financial axis were intentionally and unfairly discriminated against.^[10] This inflicted a substantial deprivation of human rights and an injury to those individuals who had historically created for their communities from the parched earth of what had been a derelict country when they arrived.

This paper aims to be factually correct. To ensure veracity Mandela and others are invited to respond correcting any inadvertent errors.

August Pontneuf

References:

^[1] In a separate essay it will be posed that the black population, if extremists are excluded, fully recognised that the basis of apartheid was no more than the natural, and expected, protection by the white population of their complex culture, and material social creation. The indigenous population recognised that apartheid was not a system of malice, and far from exploiting the indigenous culture, it offered the opportunity for the indigenous population to enter the realm of capitalist Christian Democracy.

² Report (Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)) 2: 333. http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf. "THE CONSEQUENCE IN THESE CASES, SUCH AS THE MAGOO’S BAR AND THE DURBAN ESPLANADE BOMBINGS, WERE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THAT THEY RESULTED IN INJURIES TO AND THE DEATHS OF CIVILIANS.”

³http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf. "THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ‘SUSPECTED AGENTS’ WERE ROUTINELY SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF SEVERE ILL-TREATMENT AND THAT THERE WERE CASES WHERE SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE CHARGED AND CONVICTED BY TRIBUNALS WITHOUT PROPER ATTENTION TO DUE PROCESS BEING AFFORDED THEM, SENTENCED TO DEATH AND EXECUTED.".

⁴ ^ Castro Ruz, Fidel Alejandro and Mandela, Nelson (1991). How Far We Slaves Have Come. N.Y.: Pathfinder Press. pp. 18–20. ISBN 0873484975.

⁵ ^ Crocker, Chester A. (1992). High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393034321. http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood. "In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 UNITA fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. ... Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into UNITA and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat... The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. ... As of mid-November, the UNITA/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of FAPLA's best remaining units clinging onto the town's defensive perimeters." Crocker was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Reagan Administration

⁶ Gandhi, also famed for pacifism actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians in Natal into the army, during the Zulu war. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship.

⁷ Anglo-American Corporation has moved almost all its gold interests out of South Africa.

⁸ Semi-official figures state that one quarter of the white population has emigrated. The true figure will be considerably higher.

9 The number of “Mandela Trusts is obscure, but there are at least three. Best known is the Mandela Children’s Fund. Totally separate and less known is the Nelson Mandela Trust holding funds available to Mandela personally. One of the scams relating to “Nelson Mandela Signed Artwork” was expected to make for the Nelson Mandela Trust (i.e. Mandela personally) 200,000,000 rand in two years. Clearly there are immense funds in Mandela’s purse.

¹⁰ See “The comparison of Nazism with the ANC”

Transitory realities

A subject which I had planned to write about last week, resulted from a discussion on BBC2's Newsnight, hosted by Kirsty Walk, between a columnist from the Spectator and someone who had previously held a high ranking position in the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The discussion focused on the recent news story regarding Prince Harry who, as I mentioned in a couple of recent posts, has been required to undergo re-education, due to a perceived failure to pay sufficient homage to the modern day dogmas of multiculturalism and the unquestioned benefits of ethnic diversity.

The guy from the CRE was naturally firmly in favour Harry's punishment, whereas the Spectator columnist was less enthusiastic, and indeed expressed a healthy scepticism for the diversity worship which is now an essential qualification for holding down a position within the mainstream media. As such, I doubt we will see or hear much more from him.

However, the debate itself, and indeed those debating, are of less relevance than was the parting shot by the bigwig from the Campaign for Racial Engulfment, who, just as Kirsty was terminating the discussion, turned to his adversary and smugly announced that a multi-cultural society was “the reality of modern Britain”.

This, of course is a statement we are hearing more and more, as the party faithful, who have worked so feverishly to undermine our national soul, flaunt what they consider to be their victory, and seek to trump our hand with the apparent fait accompli that what they sought so hard to achieve, has come to pass.

Of course, they are correct that multiculturalism is a reality of of today's Britain, in the same way that communism was the reality of Czechoslovakia in the 1960's, warfare is the reality of the Congo and Afghanistan, whist bankruptcy is the increasing reality of Zimbabwe, and it is no more wholesome or welcome.

The multiracial “reality” of our country has been achieved by deception, by intimidation and bullying, by bribery, corruption, propaganda and lies, it was however not achieved by either consent or democracy.

At no stage during the last fifty years, whilst they were laying the foundations of the monster they have created, did any mainstream party stand for election with a manifesto which even admitted that they would encourage increased immigration, let alone facilitate the creation of a multiracial society, especially not when another mainstream party stood on a manifesto promising that they wouldn't do so. When it came to elections, none of the main parties acknowledged the “reality” of unchecked immigration, therefore “NO” was never an option on offer, and when one party, the BNP, did stand up and say “NO” it was vilified and lied about in a manner which continues to this very day.

When those who hate us brag of the reality they forced upon us, they are no better than the rapist who taunts his victim with the reality of her rape, for that too was taken without consent.

On first reading that may seem an extreme analogy, but before you dismiss it consider the parallels.

The multicultural “reality” was achieved first through lies and deception “Your safe, ... it wont happen” and by seduction “its cool, its exotic .... love that Burundi beat.. feel the rhythm .... you know you want it” but, when that only worked with a few airhead bimbos, then came the fear, the intimidation, the bullying and, of course, the allegations .. “if you don't let me you are a racist! ... racist! ....racist!!”.

That one word became the WMD, which they used against us relentlessly.

To speak out against the creation of a multicultural society, or to mention any potential downside was to be a racist. Name one person who has dared speak out against the shrieking gods of diversity, or pointed out that nothing is enriched by being changed beyond recognition, who has not been labeled with that multi purpose word, which we have been brainwashed, beyond reason, to dread being called.

However, to submit through fear or because of fraud is not to consent, and no matter how many times our abusers tell us we were asking for it, the truth is we were not. As a nation we never consented to what has been done to us, we were merely never permitted to say NO.

The reality of a violation does not make the act any less wrong or mean that what was done can not be put right, and victims, no natter how wounded, can move in to a new reality, where they are no longer victims.

Realities live within a time frame, they are not inevitably eternal and many one time realities have gone on to become historical anachronisms. The brave Czechs fought hard and finally shook off the yoke of Communism, they are now a free nation and their president is one of the few great statesmen and defenders of freedom left in Europe. The Czech reality has changed, and surely we all hope that the Congo, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe will also, in time, find new realities.

Britain has lived through prior realities which have passed into the history books, we were, after all one of the early European republics, and no doubt those living under drab Cromwellian rule believed their reality had changed forever.

The belief that the present is forever and can never be changed is the friend of demagogues and abusers, it is a lie designed to enslave us. Don't get me wrong, I know how convincing that lie can be, given that so much of what we see and read is designed to promote that lie. However, we must not be deceived by, for instance. the diversity worship we see daily on our TV screens, that is nothing but the Western equivalent of the little flower girl singing to the Dear Leader, it is state sponsored propaganda and no more proof of permanence than she is.

Today's “reality” exists only for so long as it is permitted to. History shows us that one time realities fade and new ones take their place. Today's reality may seem ugly and depressing, but it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Our enemies can flaunt today's victories, as Hitler might have flaunted Dunkirk, but that should not stop us fighting for a better tomorrow.

The truth is that, for all their bragging, our enemies were never so weak as they are today, and it is at times like this that realities can change.

__________________________

The "benefits" of mass immigration

Governments, such as the USA, the UK together with most in Europe and those media organisations who favour an open door immigration policy keep telling us how much our economy benefits from immigration on account of all the wealth immigrants allegedly create and "bring into the country".

As an answer to this claim, I would like to suggest a little exercise, which you can try whilst sitting at you computer. First go to www.google.com or any other search engine, and type in the words Sending money home then click search, and count the number of result options you are given.

I suspect that the figure you see will come as a surprise, and may give you an inkling as to exactly which economies are benefiting from mass immigration into countries like Britain and America.

Give enough chimps typewriters ........

The New York post was certainly unwise in their decision to publish the now infamous dead chimp cartoon with its reference to the stimulus bill, which the US Congress recently approved (presumably with their eyes closed and every available limb and digit crossed). It was inevitable that allegations or racism would be used to deflect any legitimate criticism of the first Kenyan born, and part African POTUS, so the outcry could hardly have come as a surprise, and the Post have only themselves to blame.

Commentators are well advised to check how firmly their car is attached to the big dipper, as this is only the beginning of the circus to come. The current squabble will likley seem minor when compared to what will happen when criticism of "the one" becomes widespread. Give it time and expressions such as "dark clouds" and "Black Monday" will result in Al Sharpton leading crowds of baying protesters down Wall Street,

The degree of ignorance on both sides is of course quite embarrassing, at least for those of us who retain an affection for America. It is an old, and often quoted, saying, based on the infinite monkeys theorem that were enough typewriters given to a sufficient number of monkeys, one would write the Works of Shakespeare, and it must surely be that some similar device was employed when drafting what is either a frighteningly naive ir deeply cynical piece of legislation.

It is a sad indictment of those now attacking the Post that none paused to wonder whether this might be the point being made, and indeed of the New York Post that they have not, to my knowledge sought to use it in their defence.

Racism Cuts both ways - a response to Searchlight

After the British National Party released its hard hitting booklet Racism Cuts Both Ways that can be read in PDF format by following this link, Seachlight, the state funded organisation that is currently the subject of a Police Investigation, responded with an attack in the "establishment" controlled media, calling into doubt the validity of some of the information contained within the booklet.

As a result of their claims, Nemesis, a writer on the Green Arrow site and one of our most thorough and diligent researchers took Searchlights document apart with a fine toothcombe and as released the truth in the following article.

CLICH HERE TO READ AN ANALYSIS OF SEARCHLIGHT’S RESPONSE TO THE BOOKLET RACISM CUTS BOTH WAYS, AT THE HOME OF THE GREEN ARROW

Stories from a diverse world

After the long article in a week in England (which you can read by clicking here or scrolling down) I have decided to be lazy and post some links to interesting and thought provoking posts from across the internet:

British Women Pay High Price for Multiculturalism

PART I

For decades, the British people have undergone an onslaught of aggressive government propaganda schemes intent upon preparing them to first accept the multicultural totalitarian assault and to become a veritable doormat for millions of colonizers -- the vast majority being from Islamic countries. There was no public debate nor any citizen vote - multiculturalism, along with militant political correctness - were thrust upon and infected the populous of Great Britain like the Black Plague. Multiculturalism - rather than being based on mutual respect - is a parasitic ideology that encourages immigrants, to not assimilate and to aggressively insist the invaded Western countries be subservient to them and their cultures. In my opinion, multiculturalism demands 'reverse assimilation' or the inevitable loss of the indigenous culture as native populations are brainwashed, goaded, shamed and threatened to place all other cultures above their own. The following is primarily about Britain (and later more specifically England) but the same could be said about much of Europe - and likely soon to be in the USA.

Read more at the Opinionator blog by clicking here

***************************************************

Stimulus for whom?

Democratic Leadership Requires Stimulus Job Access for Illegal Aliens -- Secret Negotiations

House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and the Obama White House were absolutely certain about one thing for the House/Senate negotiating committee on the Stimulus Bill: There was to be no special restriction to keep illegal aliens from getting new jobs created by the bill at a cost of $250,000 to $500,000 each.

US readers who want to know what their taxes are being spent on (and the rest of as a warning of what will happen here next) can read more at NumbersUSA by clicking here

***************************************************

Labour's cover-up on UK's foreign workforce

KEITH Vaz is livid. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has dared to release figures showing that the number of foreign workers in Britain has increased by 175,000 to 2.4 million in the past 12 months, while the number of British workers in employment fell by 234,000 - and that’s the last news that the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee wanted published on the very day that unemployment in Britain reached a 12 year high.

Read more on the BNP website by clicking here

*************************************************

US Slams crime in South Africa

The magnitude of crime in South Africa “should be considered a human rights violation”, according to the latest United States Department of State Human Rights Report.

Among the crimes it notes as human rights violations are a staggering 23 453 children raped, 1 075 murdered and 20 879 assaulted last year alone.

Read more at SA Sucks, by clicking here

Views of Detroit - December 2007

Click on the picture to see the video at YouTube

How long before Peckham, or even Croydon looks like this?

NB: Some may wish to turn down the volume

A Week in England

A series of events occurred this week which reveal with chilling clarity quite how far down the green brick road to Khalifah we have skipped, encouraged on by a motley assortment of straw-headed morons, moral cowards and a fair few wicked witches.

The first of these events was the decision by the Church of England synod to join the UK Stasi - that is to say the British Police - in banning its employees from membership of a legal and legitimate political party, the BNP. The fact that this received, scant, fourth to sixth news item, coverage in the media, and probably passed unnoticed by the majority of the population, demonstrates how irrelevant the once mighty Church of England has become, and how little most people now care about the waffling, bleating and bickering at what progressively resembles a gathering of dodgy piano teachers in frocks.

However, I care, I was brought up in the Church of England, christened and later confirmed into the church during my early teens, after having first gone into retreat in a beautiful old Abbey to prepare myself for what was, even then, as recently as the 1980's, considered a big deal.

My parents, whilst being an amusing and sophisticated couple, were quite religious people, who were committed members of the C of E. My father in particular was very active in the church, for at least a decade acting as Sidesman, every Sunday handing out prayer books to the congregation or taking the collection. A man who could talk at length on any subject, from politics to art culture and sport would spend hours speaking of scripture, philosophy and of the church, subjects which he dearly loved. Meanwhile, my mother would take her turn every six weeks or so, in preparing the flowers in the Church or delivering the parish news letter, and it was she who taught us the prayers of her own childhood in our infancy, which I then taught to my son in his.

Both, having left us recently, now lie buried in the shadow of their church, and are remembered with affection among the congregation to which they belonged, in a corner of old England which is still clinging on.

I may not be as involved in the church as my parents were, but I was married there, my son was christened in church, and throughout my life I have never gone more than a month without taking holy communion. The Church means a lot to me, it has been part of my life, and I have been more a part of it than the vast majority if my fellow Britons can now claim to be.

However, the church in which I was raised has rejected me, and when they did so they threw lies about me in my face. One of the befrocked old liars stated that the BNP, a party I have voted for, supported the "forcible eviction of people of different faiths and races". He lied, forcible repatriation is not BNP policy, and has not been for many years, if it ever was. Voluntary repatriation, funded by the taxpayer, certainly is, it is much cheaper in the long run than having them stay, but certainly no law abiding citizen, who is here legally would be thrown out by the BNP. What the BNP would do is halt the relentless tide of new immigrants, and it is that which the deceitful old cleric could not stomach.

However, as proof that they are united in their campaign of distortion, not one of his peers stood up and shouted "That is untrue you dishonest old git!" although they must surely all have known it was.

The Church may not (yet) have banned BNP supporters from its pews, but how can I, with honour, remain with a Church which has told me that what I believe in and what I am fighting for is a sin? My church has forced me to make a choice, I have done so, and I have not chosen them.

My faith will have to sustain me for a while. The Church of Rome has embarked upon its own campaign against thought and, as such, offers no alternative. However, something will emerge, as through history other churches have sprung up to offer a home to previous victims of other bigotry. As more eyes are opened, more people will move away from the shameful, cringing, irrelevance the established church has become.

We who have been rejected will move on, we will become stronger and we will still worship a Christian God, meanwhile the Church of England which has long only paid limited lip service to such an act, will continue its inevitable decline to something only suited, or relevant, to the mad black bigots of sub Saharan Africa.

******************************

A second thing which occurred this week was the announcement that Prince Harry would be sent for re-education, disingenuously referred to as "diversity awareness training", but which might be more accurately described as Multicultural brainwashing.

To our media, leaders and thought controllers, it matters not that, unlike many of his critics such as the deeply unattractive Keith Vaz or the unfunny comedian Stephen K Amos, Harry has spent time working tirelessly in Africa, to make life better for Africans, and can be seem affectionately cuddling black children in scores of photographs taken during his time in Africa. In a land where a man's actions are meaningless when compared to his utterance of an ideologically impure word, our controllers have judged young Harry guilty of the unspeakable heinous and unforgivably evil act of failing to be sufficiently politically correct when making a private video, or engaging in a private conversation.

As punishment for his breach of party rules, a grovelling apology not withstanding, Harry must suffer public humiliation, and submit to political retraining.

Is it just me, or do images from life within the Soviet sector of East Berlin circa 1961 spring to your minds as well?. Are we to assume that if Harry were to "re-offend" he will then be banished to some goulag north of Strathclyde?.

I guess it should not surprise us that so much in Britain today has overtones echoing, at the very least, the psychology of life within the GDR between 1950 and 1990. It is after all the beliefs and teachings of those same people who applauded the Soviet Empire, the drawing of the iron curtain, and the thought control imposed on half of Europe, for the better part of a century, which have brought us to where we are. For it is their prize winning students who are now running our lives and dictating our language.

******************************************

Finally, in my account of this week I shall turn to the shameful decision to ban film maker and elected Dutch politician Geert Wilders from Britain, where he was planning to attend the screening of his documentary FITNA. By a single, and deeply contemptible act of capitulation Britain was exposed not only as a country no longer possessed of the spirit needed to face down intimidation, but a land where freedom of conscience is no longer safe.

That a country which once ruled half the surface of the earth has been reduced to a cringing submissive before the advance of a crusading Islam, came as no surprise to those of us who have watched and railed at our nations rapid surrender, but it must have come as a shock to those who had been looking the other way and imagined brave Albion retained some vestige of the courage it once had.

Much as been said about how, by banning Wilders, the United Kingdom has renounced any remaining pretence to a belief in free speech, and indeed, how can we deny that we have now abandoned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which clearly states: "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people".

I have already made my views clear on that, and frankly any honourable person will realise that what was done was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of free speech, even if their political agendas prevent them from admitting to it. Therefore, I shall let others comment on these aspects, and shall instead focus not on the cowardice and betrayal which was involved, but on the lies and deceit which was used in support of it.

First there is the official justification given for banning Mr Wilders, namely that his presence would be a threat to social harmony and likely to incite racial hatred. This implication being that Wilders and his supporters would act in a disharmonious manner, and commit acts of racial hatred, this certainly was what Lord Ahmed and his government sought to suggest. However, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It was rioting Muslim protesters, such as those Ahmed threatened us with, and the racial hatred which they would perpetrate against Wilders and his supporters which the government feared.

However, on account of the warped doctrine which now rules us, it was he, the potential victim, and not they , the potential aggressors, our government chose to ban! How exactly does such a policy differ from one which seeks to prevent rape by banning women from going out?!

Turning from the act to its supporters brings us to a second vaudevillian performance from the thankfully, inimitable Keith Vaz. Vaz is a man famous for his inability to appreciate his own ludicrousness, but he must have exceeded even himself in lack of personal awareness on Thursday night. Anyone watching BBC2's Newsnight must have surely sensed the smell of old lavender and the flutter of purple chiffon, while the ghost of Mary Whitehouse rode once more, as Vaz announced, without apparent irony that he "did not have to see FITNA to know it was racist".

The evening before and on a different channel , a toad like creature mascaraing as a reporter for More4 news accused Wilders of "selectively quoting" from the Qur'an. This was from a member of a profession which bases its entire output upon selective quotations in order to tell a story or to report on an issue. In effect the toad-like reporter was criticising Wilders for doing exactly the same thing as his employers pay him to do, except that there is probably more truth in FITNA than in the average week's Channel 4 news output.

Given that Geert Wilders does not belong to that select circle with "journalist" on their CV, who are apparently permitted by some by-law to quote selectively, did the More4 toad expect him to sit in front of the camera and read out the entire Qur'an for the sake of balance? That smacks of the agenda behind those attempting to impose that oppressive (some might say fascist) and most certainly misnamed "Fairness doctrine" on US talk radio, which is designed to achieve censorship through boredom, and hide facts under a mountain of irrelevance.

Clearly those sections of the Qur'an urging its followers to throw homosexuals off mountains, or not to pay interest on loans, have no direct relevance to why Muslims might decide to blow up trains and disco bars, or fly aeroplanes into tall buildings, and I am sure Wilders does not suggest they do. However, the bits which call upon followers of Islam to carry out acts of violence against non-believers just might have some relevance, and that is what Wilder's film is about.

Finally we get to the main lie about Geert Wilders and about FITNA, which is the allegation that the film distorts or misrepresents the Qur'an's teachings. This claim takes media misinformation to a new level, and needs to be exposed for what it is.

Wilder's film shows us words from the holy text, it then shows us those same words being used by preachers when calling for acts of violence and finally it shows us acts of violence committed by followers of that same holy text. What FITNA shows us is a sequence leading from cause, through application, to effect. If there is an act of dishonesty being perpetrated within the sequence it is by the preachers who use the words to incite the violence, not by Wilder in reporting them doing so.

You can argue, as some try to, that the words in themselves are innocent, but you can not argue that the words are being used to incite acts of terrible brutality, because they self evidently are, whether or not that is the intent of the author. By reporting that fact Wilders is distorting nothing and misrepresenting no-one.

We can choose to decide whether it is the words which are at fault or the people using them. What we should not be doing is pretending that these questions do not exist. But that is exactly what our media or our leaders want, they don't report the facts, because without them, we can't ask the questions, and that is why Wilders was banned.

Thus we passed through another week on this crowded, near bankrupt and Orwellian little island.

____________________________________

Some recent US Mugshots

Notice the connection? :-)

The speech GEERT WILDERS would have made, had Britain still believed in freedom

Can be read here

Spread the truth about Islam

Click on this link to read a message from my good friend the Green Arrow

Britain renounces freedom of speech and thought

I would have said that this was a particularly sad day had I retained any fleeting illusion that Britain remained a free country which still held dear those values of free speech and conscience which we once treasured. However, I no longer believe that, and therefore see this is one of many sad days.

Today differs only in so far that our country's renunciation of the freedom of thought and word has now been announced to the rest if the world, much of which will, with some justification, now hold us in contempt.

It also has the effect of openly revealing quite how rapidly we, as a nation, are capitulating to forces which wish us only ill, as such it is a frightening day. By each act of appeasement we come closer to abject surrender, and when that happens it will be for the victors to do with us as they will, and do not cling to any comfortable fantasy that they will be kind.

No Briton with a mind and with eyes to see can feel proud of our county today.

I shall write further in this subject at the weekend.

Ignoring the cracks

When a great structure or edifice begins to crumble, be it a towering rock face, a mighty building or a huge and imposing statue, the early warnings of imminent disaster are often small, and easy to miss or to ignore. A distant rumble, a shifting rock or a small cascade of pebbles are ominous signs of what is to come, but frequently only spotted by those who are truly prepared to look. Thus it can be for a sovereign nation state, and is how it has been with Britain.

Those who wish to undermine a society are most effective when they embark on their campaign of sabotage in small ways, so that their dark work remains undetected for as long as possible by those they seek to destroy, until the foundation upon which they stand is so weakened that it cannot withstand the final push which will send all which it once supported hurtling to oblivion.

Some have been warning us for years that there are forces within this land which are committed to destroying everything which is great about Great Britain. For a long time they were lonely voices calling to deaf ears, although more recently others, including one time New Labour voters, such as myself, have begun to see the truth in what they are have been telling us, and to appreciate the growing threat which we, as a nation, face.

However, for many the erosion of our culture has been so gradual and piecemeal that, even many of those who suspect that something is happening, do not yet realise how far it has gone and how narrow are the remaining planks on which they stand.

Commenting at the Green Arrow blog on an earlier post of mine which focused on the recent protests against the employment of foreign workers, a very aptly named blogger calling himself “Not my Granddad's Labour party” wrote:

The reason that this dispute has woken the British people is because it's a sudden change rather than a gradual, almost imperceptible attrition. If you look at the way that 'enrichment' has been implemented up to now, it has been a gradual destruction of our way of life - a death by a thousand cuts.

Each cut has been a minor annoyance, but not enough to bring people out on the streets.

- Nobody's actually rioted about the banning of 'Three Little Pigs' or crucifixes.

- People haven't been willing to die in a ditch about the gradual extension of the definition of Politically Incorrect speech.

- Nobody has taken to the barricades when the Union Jack and Flag of St George were deemed 'inappropriate'.

- Families have just had to grin and bear it when they've been pushed to the back of housing waiting-lists to make way for vibrant fast-breeders and their multiple wives.

But losing your job, and then inevitably your house, is hardly a minor annoyance. The EUrabians have made a major tactical error here. They have awoken a sleeping giant.

Not My Granddad's Labour is correct that the average Briton is less likely to fully grasp what they are loosing if it is chopped away gradually and by stealth, especially when there are so many deliberate and carefully placed distractions put in his way.

The enemy has, of course, been less cautious where they are unobserved, or, more accurately observed only by the innocent, be in little doubt that were hidden cameras secreted in many classrooms, and people were able to see the lies, disinformation, historical inaccuracies and blatant propaganda being fed to our children they would at last grasp what is being done. Of course, a corrupt media own the cameras, and they would not tell us the truth, so away from the public gaze, the next generation continue to receive an education which is little more than multicultural propaganda, hate and lies.

I wonder though whether the terrorists amongst us do believe them made a tactical error over the foreign workers dispute, or whether they believe that their work has been so successful that they no longer need to hide and that their years of work have brought our society to the point where a final push will send what remains of a once great culture tumbling into the historical void.

If they did think that, it would be hard to fault their logic, for look at where we are, and look at where we came from.

It is hard to think of another culture which has become quite as diminished as ours has and which has done so quite so rapidly. With our culture, our once rich language has been reduced to dumbed down politically correct mush. Words and phrases which tripped off the tongues of our mother's generation, and many before, have been condemned and silenced for fear that they might offend cultures which a hundred years ago struggled to master the wheel.

Members of a legitimate political party are banned from working in our police force, and now in our churches, but nobody dares to say “Hey this is what happened in East Germany in the 1960 's (or indeed Nazi Germany in the 1930's)”.

Pictures of the Boxing day crowds in Oxford street, appear in the news papers and on TV, and nobody has the courage to point out that there is not an indigenous, white, face amongst them.

Day after day we see clear evidence of the totally disproportionate levels of murder, rape, and mayhem committed against us by ethnic minorities, yet we remain silent when our lying media and politicians tell us that they, the ethnic minorities, are our victims.

The moment a single European voice, such as Geert Wilders' is raised against what is being done to us and our European brothers across our continent, he is banned from our shores (albeit that may be reversed if in dawns on David Silly-Bland that was a tactical error). Yet a days before a Muslim Peer makes a totally undemocratic threat and our legislators fawningly and instantly submit.

Earlier generations of Britons would have died fighting before they allowed this to happen, but we cringe and submit to it like beaten mutts. Yet, what is it we cringe before? A bunch of ill educated or hate filled communists, a dishonest media and a regiment of alleged human rights lawyers, who defend only the human rights of a selected few, together with a few lying, soul selling, politicians and above all the terrorism of a single word. We cringe because if we do otherwise we might be called “racists” or we might offend people from cultures, where wife beating, infanticide, honour killing, female genital mutilation, gang-rape, homophobia, murder, torture and corruption are endemic, - some indeed where ritual killing, cannibalism and slavery still occur, - and people we have granted sanctuary to and yet whom we are taught to feel indebted – and often inferior - to.

How have we, the British, come to this?

We have reached this point through the gradual, drip, drip, drip erosion of our culture and or national self esteem. In many ways Briton has come to resemble the brave soldier who would once have taken on and bettered any foe, but who now submits, childlike, to his hectoring wife, because after years of nagging, she has broken his spirit.

That analogy, albeit sexist (there are many men who nag their wives) sums up quite well how this has been achieved. By a process of first making us feel uncomfortable, then guilty, followed by telling us repeatedly that we are in the wrong, they have brought us to a point where what they say is the commonly accepted truth and what tell us has become the dogma of the state.

Is it any surprise that our enemies believe that we are vanquished, that they have won and as such no longer have to take their time and stealthily kill us by a thousand cuts?. That they have become bolder and more blatant and have moved to the next phase. You need not take my word for it, look around you and you will see it happening.

It is not over, but my God we have left it late to fight back, and there will be damage which can not be repaired. However, much can still be saved, if we decide to save it. In the dark days of World War II it looked as if all was lost, but it was not. A few hundred years before that the enemy appeared set to breach the walls of Vienna, but they were forced back. We have come back from the edge before, and we can do so again, but the window will not remain open forever.

The edifice crumbles slowly and can be repaired, but there comes a point where the fall will be fast and inevitable. Let us as a people awake before we reach that point.

Pictures of a "racist" prince

As some affirmatively assisted z-list comedian scrabbles to gain publicity by attempting to reignite the "Prince Harry is a racist" allegations, by repeating a throw away line from a brief conversation, I suggest that readers take a look at the pictures below, and contemplate as to who the real racists in our society are.

Time was that a man would be judged by his actions, in the thought police state in which we now live, it is a casual or ill chosen word which will be used against us.

Below, on the other hand, is the accuser

Parallels from the past

By guest contributor: August Pointneuf

Parallels of Nazism with the ANC

Nazism is a benchmark against which ruthless human control had been measured and as a demonstration of “evil” political behaviour. So great and so unfettered by external criticism was the political power allowed to it that Germany destroyed itself and much more.

The following describes aspects of the evolution of the Nazi party prior to the Second World War

A cascading adulation of the masses voted in what they were lead to believe was a heroic and charismatic leader: Having had a military history and been imprisoned he was seen as a “person of the people”, capable of bringing great changes. Acquiring overwhelmingly power, supported by the unemployed youth, he was in the position to overcome the constitution, abolish all controls and restraints on this power, and so entrench that party into seemingly permanent control.

However, the intellectuals had grave reservations both about leader’s intelligence, and about the unconstrained direction he seemed to be taking. Sadly their limited numbers made them irrelevant. Many of these outstandingly capable people, with a foresight, left the country.

In Germany the government began to target the vibrant, creatively and financially successful minority.

The minority was then selectively and progressively excluded from earning a living. The rationale was that the majority had been prejudiced by the success of this group, and the population had been “disadvantaged” by the creative skills of this minority. There was to be an enforced (and legislated) transfer of property and wealth away those who had created it. Businesses were to be taken over by the majority race, whose members were to be awarded (by law) shareholdings which they had not earned. This minority was progressively deprived of their land, even when the title holders depended upon the land for their livelihood.

The minority had their entry to the professions restricted, via a stranglehold on university admissions, where selection was by race, not merit.

The majority race was pushed by propaganda into a “consciousness” of their “superiority”. The success of isolated individuals was projected, promoting any petty successes, which were minimal in relation to their numbers. Money was pored into projects designed to “prove” the superiority of the majority race. The propaganda machine began to emphasise examples of the success of selected individuals, claiming that they “represented” the capabilities of the majority race.

An attempt was made to convince the world of the capabilities of Germany by putting it on the international stage. Sport was recruited, and the Olympic Games was pursued as a potential grandstand.

The ultimate goal of this selective prejudice against a minority race was to appease an electorate in times of economic stress, and ultimately ensured the political “success” of the party in power, (which meant ensconcing that political party into permanent power).

Large arms and other industrial manufacturers funded both politicians and the party in power initially, notably Thyssen, in the belief that they were protecting their interests.

The world outside Germany was impressed. “This is a country going someplace!” was heard. “This is a model for the capitalist world! A place to invest! This is a country aware of its moral high ground!”

Eminent persons visited and then expressed their favourable impressions. The most senior ambassadors were dispatched to Germany. It was visited by Royalty.

However there were sceptics who comprehended the underlying dangers.

One result was the silent but eventually massive loss of the unique creative skills possessed by the minority which had proven itself by its success but was now so threatened. Emigration was propelled, leaving large skill vacuums: those emigrants subsequently added mightily to the capacities of their host countries.

The parallels of Nazism with the ANC.
Now read this again, changing two words, Germany to South Africa and Olympic Games to Soccer World Cup.

Posts Script:

The last election gave the ANC an 80% majority, well over the threshold allowing it to change the constitution and entrench it in power

Comment on SABC news 19.00h 17 January 2007 “Makhaya Ntini, South Africa’s greatest sportsman, was given a Keiser Chiefs jersey”

Jan Christian Smuts, internationally famous as a leader of the Western world, politician, Field-Marshal, jurist, scholar, classicist, botanist, philosopher, and author, was remembered by naming South Africa’s main airport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

The ANC removed Smuts’ name, and replaced it with Oliver Tambo Airport.

Thyssen-Krupp and the South African arms deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Arms_Deal

Purged by the thought police

It seems that ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's daughter Carol has made the mistake of making an ideologically impure comment in a private conversation, with potentially disastrous consequences to her future career.

As we saw recently with the attacks on Prince Harry over another private comment, the Stasi are alive and well, ad they are looking to make examples of anyone in the public eye who speaks out of line or does not obey the party rules.

The new order

Who censors the censors?

He who controls what people can see and think is a power in the land.